This story was initially circulated two days ago with a blanket statement of “AUS Home Affairs confirms the breach” - which at the time was false because they o

This story was initially circulated two days ago with a blanket statement of “AUS Home Affairs confirms the breach” - which at the time was false because they only acknowledged the rumour. Whether or not it’s a rumour based on speculation has nothing to do with it. It either is or it isn’t. There is no confirmation that it isn’t. -- Just to provide receipts: Home Affairs Department confirms cyber incident impacting Ticketmaster customers (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-29/ticketmaster-hack-allegedlyshinyhunter-customers-data-leaked/103908614 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-29/ticketmaster-hack-all...) - May 29th > The Department of Home Affairs said it is aware of a cyber incident impacting Ticketmaster customers in response to claims it is part of a data leak expected to impact millions of customers globally. How exactly "being aware" counts as "confirmation" in this case? Any other article (outside of those who used ABC Aus as a source) on this matter have specifically used words like "allegedly", "purported", etc. That's the only argument I am making.